Romans 5:15 in the KJV versus modern translations

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Mexdeaf, Oct 18, 2012.

  1. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the link posted in the "Dear Ole Westcott and Hort" thread:

    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Romans 5:15[/FONT]

    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] One is in Romans 5:15, which reads in the Authorized Version: "But not as the offense, so also is the free gift." The Apostle is explaining the subject of the atonement. In due course he comes to this verse. It is admittedly obscure in its wording. To explain its meaning, I will paraphrase, not as a translator but as a pastor and expositor: "but in the case of those who did not commit Adam's sin but died because of it, so also is the free gift." The Apostle is talking about that which Bible teachers often call "Federal Mediation:" the one acts and the many are effected. If you send a representative to the federal government, he acts on your behalf. In this same way, Adam acted, and all of his children were effected by what he did, even though they were not physically there, and they did not do what he did. The free gift functions on exactly the same principle. Christ acted, and all of His children were affected by His actions, just as all of Adam's children were effected by his actions. We were not there in literal, physical form at the Cross (though we were in a spiritual way which we will not attempt to address here). We did not do what Christ did. But we (those of the faith, who have accepted Christ as Savior) were effected anyway. The similarity is not in the nature or the end result of the actions of the two Adams, but in the principle of how federal action on the part of the father effects the children. This is a very important consideration in understanding the atonement. Without this information, no one can possibly understand what St. Paul is saying.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Every modern translation that I have seen, including the NIV, the English Translation of 1881, the paraphrases, and the so-called New King James, have changed this verse to say: "but the free gift is not at all like the offense" or words to that exact effect. (This means that the New King James is an eclectic text. As such, it too is a fraud and a deceit. It is not simply, as billed, an up-dating of old English words. The editors have DELIBERATELY CHANGED THE WORDING TO MAKE YOU THINK THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY THINK IT MEANS! In my opinion they have totally missed the meaning. Yet, whether or not they are wrong in their interpretation is not the point. Expositors have the right to their opinion. The point is, translators and revisionists do not have the right to interpret. But this is interpreting, on an eclectic basis. That is the danger that is presented by every so-called "Updated" version, transliteration, paraphrase, or linguistic commentary.) Yet in the Textus Receptus and the W-H Greek Text, the wording is identical in every respect. The Greek word for also is kai. According to Dr. Strong (Strong's Concordance for the King James) it means: ". . . a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so, then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words: and, also, both, but, even, for, if, indeed, likewise, moreover, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yea, yet."[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In short, this word is put here to bring the accumulated weight of the first argument to bear on the second: "as that -- so this." Yet the eclectic scholars, through ignorance or malice, have ignored it completely to make this passage mean what they want it to mean! In every instance, the authors of these texts know full well that this is not what the ancient text actually says! Only the Revised Standard Version of 1901 left this verse unchanged (they did not do nearly so honorably in other places as we shall see). The simple fact is that the other recent versions have used Hort's principle of eclecticism and put in what they thought it should say -- not what it actually says in the ordained Scriptures. Anyone who thinks that this was a naive accident, is living in a fog. The fact that it not only confused but changed the doctrine of the atonement, is too significant to be an oversight by careful men.[/FONT]


    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Notwithstanding that the author calls Biblical paraphrases 'translations' and clearly shows his lack of understanding of the practice of translation, does his complaint have any merit?[/FONT]


    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
    [/FONT]
     
  2. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    No. I don't think he has a point at all.

    First, like all KJO folks, he assumes the promise of God preserving His Word applies to the KJV and not just the original autographs. That is huge. The author does not say that directly but the implication is there based on how he treats it.

    Second, he creates a false argument in order to feign indignation and support what amounts to idolatry. Let's say he is talking about a bus.

    Person A says, "The bus over there is red."
    Person B says, "There is a red bus."

    Both are saying the same thing. The intended message is not change at all. However, the author insists that person A is correct and any other rephrasing must change the intended meaning and is therefore evil.

    In "the message" the intended meaning is changed. However, we have reliable translations that do not change the meaning. The author lumps these all together and that shows a lack of integrity on his part because it shows his bias from the start. He has a clear agenda that does not include a reasonable look at the issue as a whole This, IMO, discredits his whole work on this.
     
  3. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,204
    Likes Received:
    611
    "But not as the offense, so also is the free gift."

    When I read this I get the sense that the free gift is not the same as the offense. "But not" modifies the "offense" to mean it's not the same as the free gift. If you reverse the phrasing:

    "So also the free gift is not as the offense" it makes the most sense to me.

    Hate to say it, but if the doctrine of federal mediation hangs on this verse it seems to me that it's a wrong interpretation of the verse. The argument in the article, "Federal Mediation:" the one acts and the many are effected (sic), and then using Adam and Christ as the example isn't analogous. Adam sinned so all men are condemned? That is correct. Christ died and rose again and offers the free gift of salvation so all men are saved? Ah, no. Adam sinned so many men were condemned? Incorrect. Christ died and rose again and offers the free gift of salvation so many men can be saved. Correct.

    Seems to me the verse is saying that since Adam sinned all men are condemned. But the free gift isn't the same as the offense in that not all men will be saved.

    Just my quick interpretation of it. And I'd never heard the phrase Federal Mediation before.
     
  4. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Paul might be simple contrasting that while all of those who are in Adam are spiritually dead, all those who now are in christ are made spiritually alive again!
     
  5. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    FYI: The phrase "Federal Mediation" appears to be better known as "Federal Theory" or "Federal Headship" as used by Covenant Theologists.
     
  6. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    First, the idea that the modern translations are saying the same thing as the KJV, does not seem correct. The idea being presented is they say the opposite. Lets compare the KJV to the NKJV.

    15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. (KJV)

    15 But the free gift is not like the offense. (NKJV)

    The KJV says, as interpreted by the author, that not us, but another did the offense, and also not us but another (Christ) provided the free gift. In other words pointing to a similarity, not a difference.

    Every modern translation I looked at agrees with the NKJV over and against the KJV as interpreted.

    What we have not seen is an argument as to why the modern translations say the idea of opposites is the message, rather than a similarity, as the KJV does.
     
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    There's an old Italian saying, "traduttore, traditore.", or "translator, traitor."

    Translators are interpreters without the benefit of commentary.

    Rob
     
  8. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    But is the author correct? "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift" admits, on its face, of either a comparison, or contrast, or both. The author far overstates his case in maintaining it is a comparison alone, for in that case he would have to throw out the rest of the passage (both before and after this fragment), which explicitly contrasts the offense and the gift, maintaining that the gift is far greater than the offense.

    The author says that:

    Here he betrays his real agenda: Proving that the NKJV is an eclectic text. There is no textual variant at this point, simply a matter of translation, which he admits later in saying that the W-H and the TR are identical. He wants to paint the NKJV translators as eclectic not on the basis of the text they use but for the rendering they adopt.

    It appears that the KJV translators brushed up the Bishops translation (But not as the sinne, so is the gyft). Had he bothered to look, he would have seen that there is ample precedent for the "modern" rendering, though not quite so explicit:

    Geneva: But yet the gift is not so, as is the offence:

    or, a little more plainly by Tyndale: But the gyft is not lyke as is the synne.

    I will pass over the point that he maintains that "Only the Revised Standard Version of 1901 left this verse unchanged." He obviously means the American Standard Version and ignores that the rendering is unchanged from the Revised Version.
     
    #8 rsr, Nov 15, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 15, 2012
  9. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Thanks Rsr, so the two different translation views were also present in the "Bishops" translation, agreeing with the KJV and the author's understanding, vice the view of the modern translations also held in the Geneva and Tyndale translations. YLT also agrees with the KJV.

    So agreeing with the KJV we have:

    Bishops
    YLT
    1901 ASV
    Douay-Rheims
    Darby

    So we return to the base question, which view best translates the actual Greek text?
     
    #9 Van, Nov 21, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2012

Share This Page

Loading...